guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Entropy/Archive 31
---- You Don't need to do this. 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :When was it ever a question of "need"? I'm giving the people what they want. (T/ ) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::You know very well that people don't want you to quit the wiki. You've seen that enough times to know it already. 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :::I'm not quitting the wiki. I simply will not be helping administrating/"leading" it any longer. (T/ ) 03:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Uguu~ 03:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :::::I don't want to be a dick or anything Entropy, but how many times have you already quit the wiki (or "will not be helping it any longer") and came back? 04:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::About 5. Why do you ask? (T/ ) 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :::Random thought: More people ought to take a leaf out of Shadowphoenix's book. You people put up with way too much abuse and shenanigans. I'm not even nice to you. (T/ ) 09:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Lolwut, who cares about nice. Keep this wiki alive. Although, I should cross over to GWW, just to be rid of this drama. /dramascream: STOP THE DRAMA, DO more work Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 10:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :::::I don't "keep this wiki alive". You people do. Even if I was to leave for permanently, things would go on here. I am not central to the everyday runnings of the wiki in any way. :::::Also, a word of warning: GWW has drama of some sort nearly every single week, if you look hard enough. If you don't like it here, I can assure you the move won't be pleasant, unless you choose to ignore the goings-on. >.> (T/ ) 20:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reinstating the block From your userpage notice: "I am perplexed by the fact that none of the other administrators chose to reinstate the block". From my talk, quoting myself: I couldn't tell that he would stop by himself, but you know him better, so I believe you in that respect, and the evidence is in your favor. The procedure you quoted is revert, discuss, decide. Discussion wasn't closed (still needs to be), consensus wasn't reached, hence no reblock. --◄mendel► 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :Entropy, I consider 1RV to cover blockings etc too. Thus to reinstate the block without finish reasoning things out would've been against my own principles. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::You mad? Consensus was already reached. Not a single person(?) agrees with my revert of the block, and so it ought not stand. I don't see what else there is to discuss, as discussion is the precursor to consensus, not the other way round. (T/ ) 20:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :::What would reinstating the block now accomplish? 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Nothing, just as the original block accomplished/would have accomplished nothing. In both cases, the meaning is purely symbolic, and that's never a good thing. Bans aren't to be used for soapboxing. (T/ ) 20:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :::::But by saying "X seldom posts, so it's pointless to ban X because it would be merely symbolic," you are essentially giving X free reign, which is also never a good thing. 20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, not as messages, not symbolic. That is my personal opinion; I consider it to be the best usage of the tool. Others can of course disagree, and it is not a hard-and-fast rule because discretion ownzzz. ::::::If X seldom posts but only posts trash, then yes, you have a case for a preventative block there (and a long one). I can't really explain this without writing a big WoT, which I'm not in the mood for. (T/ ) 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::(EC) I think Entropy is right on the "symbolic" part; banning Auron probably wouldn't change his personality, and due to his limited activity, it also probably wouldn't affect him much. However, on the same hand, that argument could be used in the reverse; leaving him unbanned wouldn't accomplish anything either. ::::::At this point, I think it's perhaps a bit late to decide if Auron needs banning, since all this drama has causing a lot of the previous points to either get buried or invalidated (just my opinion). But I also think that should Auron, or anyone else at all, break a policy in this way, they should be punished based on the crime, not based on who they are or whither or not it would "accomplish" anything. ::::::...now I'll read all the comments that EC'd me. --image:GEO-logo.png[[user:Jioruji_Derako| J'ïörüjï 'Ðērākō.>']][[user talk:Jioruji Derako|.cнаt^']] 20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :::Me no mad, I just didn't felt there's been enough input/discussion to call things "reached consensus" yet. And by now it'd be moot to reban Auron anyways as I would've consider the "bantime" to be expired (ie, if I had banned Auron originally, it would've expired by now). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::::It's a figure of speech; but you won't be getting any input from me (the sole opposition) because I choose to yield without argument. Bureaucrats have the power and discretion to completely ignore the community if they so choose, but it's clear that the people want the administration's decisions to follow "majority consensus" these days, because they no longer agree to the part of the social contract which says "when a sysop/bcrat is promoted, you forfeit your right to decide what is best for the community to them". (T/ ) 20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Contracting Socially :::::For me personally, I never felt such social contract existed. Gravewit had the power by the merit of him having control of the server and everything, and that power has transferred into Wikia's TOS. I do not consider any of the other Bcrats to ever had such "social contract" with GuildWiki users. Bcrats were originally only meant as people who can promote sysops when Gravewit can't be reached, and you are IMHO the first Bcrat with whom some users have this social contract. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 21:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::I definitely never agreed to it. 21:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::We've gone over this at great length in "discussions" such as unholy festering wikidrama. Bcrats/sysops are promoted because they are trusted to act in the better interest of the community, even if that flies in the face of majority opinion/consensus. This is essentially the same as saying that the users forfeit their rights to decide for themselves. Of course, a reasonable administrator should always take heed of the community, otherwise they risk dethronement very quickly. Anyway this is getting off-topic. (T/ ) 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Meh, that particular page is a weak support because that was after you became Bcrat, so even if you really want to enforce it, that page only supported to my and Auron's and maybe mendel's cases. My writings in that very same link and its talk page more or less consistently reflects my minimalistic view on the Bcrat's role, with no implication of any acceptance of the social contract (though no out right rejection either, as that wasn't exactly a focus of attention for me at that time). ::::::::There is also a great difference between a democratic "majority" versus the process of reaching consensus. For example, the builds wipe was opposed by the "majority" if you look at it democratically, but it actually had "consensus". The wiki isn't about the raw number of people with each opinion, but rather is weighted by the actual discussion arguments supporting/opposing the positions. Three hundred uninformed people stating what they prefer in unison is less weighty then the agreement of forty two people who originally disagreed but after exchanging rational arguments coming to a mutual understanding. Of course, ideally we would want to get those three hundred people involved in the discussion to begin with... -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::::Government class tells me that majority politics is baed. Common sense tells me that power is made to be (ab)used. Combined, I conjecture that you did the right thing. [[user:Entrea|'Entrea']] [Talk] 03:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Picking up some left-over bits from prematurely archived stuff Felix originally wrote "The problem there is that all admins are either heavily biased in favor of Auron, or against him. The only exceptions are PanSola and RandomTime, and they pretty much don't care." In response to Felix, I actually do care, to an extent that still hopefully keeps me more or less objective. And I felt Auron DID cross the line especially in his response to Mendel, and while Mendel wasn't exactly being friendly when warning about the NPA, Auron's response was, IMHO, unjustifiably hostile given the amount of "provocation". I don't think mendel should've been the one banning Auron, but I'' would've consider banning Auron for how he responded to mendel. Turning the focus back on Mendel, I disapprove of how he handled the situation (under the impression that Mendel blocked Auron out of the manner of Auron's response to Mendel's warning), especially since it exhibited certain attributes of Auron that I tried to encourage Auron to change while he had his adminship. I wouldn't considered this specific incident worthy of demoting Mendel, otherwise I would have been among the first people screaming for Auron's demotion months before Auron actually ceased to be an admin. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :Thank you for your imput, Pan. Theoretically speaking, what would your justification for the ban be (what would you have written in the summary)? My ''entire reasoning behind the revert was that I felt it was based upon a faulty NPA premise. If Mendel had instead banned with "don't be a dick" (which I do not disagree with), I would not have reverted. But this point was lost in the ensuing chaos. :There was more than just this specific incidence which led to my demotion action. Mendel's term has been under close scrutiny from me since day one; it has always been hanging by a thread. I have been waiting and watching for the proverbial "fuck-up" so I could find a reason to demote. (I even explained this to Mendel the day I promoted him; you can find it in his talk archive somewhere.) There have been more than one case before where I have been disappointed with Mendel, but I had let them slide because I still at that point believed that "he was doing more good than bad". I expressed this frustration when I raged over Wintersday time, if you recall. :I asked Auron what he thought about the demotion, whether I may have been o'erhasty in it. Here was his response: :"I wasn't expecting it. I'm ignorant of your reasoning - I haven't talked to you for quite some time, so I'm not privy to any potential drama leading up to the current situation. Knowing the history is often important in cases like this. Mostly because of my ignorance, I don't have an answer for you. :"It will look like a knee-jerk reaction to some. No matter how slow you move and how many chances you give (especially if you give them in private), someone will always assume that the straw that broke the camel's back was the only straw on his back. But maybe they're right? I dunno the whole story here." :I believe this is a large reason behind the current outcry - very few people I've ever truly talked to/explained this "history"; only those people could fully understand and grasp why I did what I did. (T/ ) 20:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::A "fuck you" response on another user trying to keep things civil is ban-worthy, even if that other user was being slightly confrontational (and thus provocative). I'd probably have used "Temporary castration" as the ban reason, punning on Auron being a dick and the specific words "fuck you" that he used. ::Generally speaking, things tend to go a lot smoother if you take great pains to carefully explain actions especially related to unbans, demotions, and other "reversal" actions. Otherwise you would often be responsible for the great lack of understanding of those who didn't have your perspective, and who probably have opposite inclinations from yours. It's all about drama reduction. It wasn't like mendel was in the middle of a rampage to disappoint you, there is time to explain right before/after you take action. (-: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :::Hah. I would not disagree with that block, and in fact I would find it quite amusing. :::Generally speaking, I think that personal issues ought to be worked out off the wiki, because it creates an unnecessary amount of drama and/or you will have various interlopers coming in to add their (unwanted) opinions to your discussion. Public wiki is public, after all. I also felt that if people did not see cause to complain at the time that I brought the issue to the front (by posting it on Mendel's talk when he was promoted) then there was no reason to write a big WoT to take great pains to carefully explain my action (promotion). :::I felt that I had explained the reversal of the ban fairly sufficiently enough, and I've reiterated it a few times now in different places; the demotion, perhaps, could have used a WoT explanation...but frankly I did not expect such an uproar. :::Also, like some of us, I have a real life to work on too...but I felt that immediate action was necessary, instead of waiting for a time when RL gave me more time to explain. That may have been an error on my part, but it was one of those time-sensitive situations, in my opinion...so I would be damned if I did, damned if I didn't. (T/ ) 20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC) To Entropy There is going to be another section entitled '''To Everybody' on my own talk page.'' Why'd you do it? After I posted the apology, you could just have said, "fine, I was angry too, let's forget about it, here's your sysop rights back". You didn't. I think you might've thought about why you got so angry. I think if you had expected less of me you wouldn't have been. "Reads all the policies, considers what he writes, ..." - whatever. Something about me must've been causing these expectations. You've been looking for a bureaucrat for more than 8 months now - out of the neigh on 11 months you've been bureaucrat yourself. So you decide to give me a chance, much like Pan, Auron and Jedi. Why'd you do it like this? You've always felt drama is bad for the wiki, and you've been causing it yourself; in this case, by overreacting to what you perceived as a threat from me. You don't forgive yourself as easily as others do (well, except maybe Shadowphoenix...). Sometimes you've had the impression that your bcratship hasn't moved the wiki forward in any way; when you asked "why am I popular", nothing much you would yourself be proud of came to the surface. You've been a bureaucrat because the community supported you, and over this decision you might have felt it supported me instead. But, drama or not, you've always been an outstanding bureaucrat! This may seem exaggerated compared to the other bureaucrats this wiki has had, but I've seen other wikis, and take it from me, you are. Your reasoning (in this case, explaining the revert; recently, in meeting O'BloodyHell) is exemplary, and so is your open-eared attitude towards the community in general. Nobody is perfect, and neither are you, but you're a good sight closer to that goal than most. Your self-chosen status is now that of "bureaucrat emeritus", a sort of "elder wiki stateman", whom I hope we can depend on for good advice from time to time; not having you doing sysop duties would be a loss, and I still entertain the hope that you're too addicted to those to let them rest. But you can't get away with just not showing up for work; you deserve a sending off where everybody who knows you praises the memorable moments of your career as sysop and bureaucrat! Let me start this off by quoting you with the one sentence from my sysop promotion announcement that touched me the most: If we are going to crash, then I want to go out in style, doing things my way and following my heart. Entropy, 3 Nov 08 Everybody else, please join in! --◄mendel► 18:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :Goodbye, Entropy. Good Luck. — Warw/Wick 18:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::Really touching Text… GL and all-- ' † The Falling One© ' 19:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::It's not a goodbye! Entropy is not leaving! She's just not active as a sysop and Bcrat any longer. --◄mendel► 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::: Than it's Good I didn't say goodbye. But still GL with all things -- ' † The Falling One© ' 19:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Mendel, you post here out of frustration/impatience at getting a response from me, and thus your statements, while true in spirit, are factually unsound; they are opinions formed from incomplete information. As such, I would like to ask "everyone" to refrain from posting here until I have had a chance to clarify things. I would like to point out, though, that the so-called "bureaucrat election" has been over and done with; I have not been "looking for a bureauceat". In addendum, some of you may remember be posting sporadically about a "new bureaucrat" coming at the turn of the new year, but no such thing materialized. Let me explain this in brief: There never was going to be a "new bureaucrat", at least not in the sense that I would be promoting some new user. Rather, this was going to be a "New Year's Resolution" to "get back to business" and stop all the silly MyGuildWikiSpace'ing which I was primarily responsible for encouraging. In time-honored Soviet fashion, the "new bureaucrat" was going to be...me. But a new me; or rather, going back to the Entropy who was a hard worker, had focus and drive on improving the wiki constantly, and took her job seriously. Not the sort of half-serious, half-comical "tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood" whom you're used to these days, always joking about "you peons" and bragging about her power as supreme ruler of the wiki. That is all. (T/ ) 20:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC) I'm a nonconformist! And don't read or care about wikidramaz anymore. I also don't repeat things other people say. And now for something completely different. There was an old farmer who lived on a rock He sat in the meadow just shaking his Fist at some boys who where down by the crick Their feet in the water, their hands on their Marbles and playthings and at half past four Their came a young lady she looked like a Pretty young creature, she sat on the grass She pulled up her dress and she showed them her Ruffles and laces and white fluffy duck She said she was learning a new way to Bring up her children so they would not spit While the boys in the barnyard were shoveling Refuse and litter from yesterday's hunt While the girl in the meadow was rubbing her Eyes at the fellow down by the dock He looked like a man with a sizable Home in the country with a big fence out front If he asked her politely she'd show him her Little pet dog who was subject to fits And maybe she'd let him grab hold of her Small tender hands with a movement so quick And then she'd bend over and suck on his Candy, so tasty, made of butterscotch And then he'd spread whip cream all over her Cookies that she had left out on her shelf If you think this is dirty you can go fuck yourself! --Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :I love you, Giga <3 (T/ ) 00:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC) ::That is possibly the most amazing thing I have ever read. You have won infinite esteem as well as no fewer than one internet(s). [[user:Entrea|'Entrea']] [Talk] 03:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC) :::http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/460854 old as internets -Auron 07:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Can't get it to work. Seems to be blocked by something. ::::Even if it is old, it is exactly the sort of nonsensical drive-by posting which I appreciate to lighten things up at times like this. (T/ ) 07:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC) :::::The Prize Committee has reviewed you submission and, due to the lack of originality, has reduced the above stated prize. You new prize is the finite, albeit incalculable, amount of a few dozen less than a googolplex esteems. Additionally, your prize of the Internet has been downgraded to version 0.0.12. We appreciate your flexibility in this unexpected change of plans. [[user:Entrea|'Entrea']] [Talk] 04:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Hate of Cantha page breaker, page breaker, break me a page. 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC) :everyone hates Cantha. during the weekend I wiped on the last group in a vq of Maishang Hills. -_- Cress Arvein 04:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC) ::It's supposed to break the page and/or make you exercise those scroll fingers. It's a clever parody of how broken Factions is. And I don't just mean the quests...! ::I was in Tahnnakai Temple and came sooo close to wiping over and over. Protips: Factions Monk/Ritualist henchmen suck at healing. (Except the ones that have Life Sheath; those are acceptable if you're careful, you just get them so late though...) More protips: All frontliner Factions henchmen are paper tigers, except for Eli/Lucas who can actually tank like they ought to. I am starting to Feel the pain of people who have commented on it before me: Jesus Beam spam from Afflicted Monks sucks ass. They really ought to consider fixing the "no-scatter" bug. The counter-argument is that one ought to simply flag H/H away; however, you can't flag individual henchmen (e.g. your tank), and in Factions most encounters are "mobbing" anyway where everything is chaos, so no matter what you flag they are still in danger. Best to leave some semblance of a team formation... ::Enraged Smash also sucks. H/H AI says to kite from melee, even if they aren't doing much damage, and that just makes Enraged lol because of the KD. It also makes the Afflicted Warrior bosses actually dangerous, as they deal WTF damage + knockdown in one hit. >.> ::Overall, Cantha is manageable if you just take overwhelming firepower and wipe things before they wipe you. But the fact that you are always gimped by poor henchmen just makes it unnecessarily painful, in my mind. I don't like having to take Tahlkora and Dunkoro just because they can't be arsed to change Monk's elites to WoH, or include a prot monk before reaching Lux/Kurz territory. (Aegis rules, kthx.) My last hero slot is usually Necromancer with ::Craploads of utility there; helps lessen the pain of all weapons-based mobs, increases everyone's damage output a bit+cover conditions, summons minions for bodyblocking (one nice thing of Cantha is that there is *never* a lack of bodies), has unlimited e-management, and takes care of conditions so that Tahlkora can take a more suitable PvE elite than RC. The only thing it lacks is, of course, damage. Since I'm playing on a Heats nuker, I can generate plenty of domages on my own, but usually I like to have two Heats + the Necro, so it is considerably less "firepower" than I am used to. :\ ::I suppose I could consider using the Monk/Ritualist heroes for healing and use my heroes exclusively for offense, but that has never worked for me in the past, because they are just such failures at healing and energy management too. ::Finally, I do have one good thing to say about Cantha - all of the missions are straightforward and very simple. You run in and kill shit as fast as you can, and make sure your mission critical NPCs don't bite the dust. So for fast and brainless playthrough, it is the best campaign. (T/ ) 05:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC) :::It's actually not particularly hard to make a solid, highly dependable hero/henchman team for those missions you mentioned, Entropy. The right build for a Monk can outheal even the dreaded Jesus Beam. :::...however, Togo and Mhenlo both suck ass. Seeing as a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, and seeing as, due to their "if I die, you all die" status,both Mhenlo and Togo become (unwanted) links in your team's chain... --image:GEO-logo.png[[user:Jioruji_Derako| J'ïörüjï 'Ðērākō.>']][[user talk:Jioruji Derako|.cнаt^']] 05:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Mhenlo has WoH, Togo has VwK and Recuperation... I find them to be useful when they are completely out of the line of fire, since then they are free healing. :) (but it REALLY sucks when you are trying to pull mobs as the only human player, so they follow you, and of course try to tank...huoh) ::::I know that I fail at making good builds (well, the one above I personally like), but I've yet to find anything which works well for Factions. Usually I am taking... #Headmaster Vhang, because Energy Boon doesn't cripple him anymore #Panaku/Emi/Nika, because it's good to have at least one tankish person #Kai Ying, even if he's not as good as Herta #Lo Sha, for Hex Eater Signet, and because there aren't any other viable hench ::::Once I get to Echovald Forest/Jade Sea, there are much better hench there, and so those missions I don't find as difficult by half...it's just the stuff around Kaineng which frustrates me. ::::Those are my current choices for Monk bars. Necromancer has Foul Feast and Lo Sha has Hex Eater Signet, which is more or less sufficient; Aura of Faith is rather meh but I don't know what would be better. This is sufficient throughout all of Nightfall and Prophecies, and EotN too. But when I get mobbed in Factions, things go down the drain regardless. (Maybe I could use Channeling.) I do what I can to pull, but especially for mission like Tahnnakai Temple, it's a rush for Master's and I really just need more damage output. It's not like I haven't gotten Masters there before; it has just been a frustrating/harrowing experience each time. (T/ ) 05:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC) :::::It's called Sabway. Works everywhere. (if there are corpses) Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 08:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::I'm perfectly aware of Sabway. I just don't like running it because it's gimmicky/imba/unfair/cliche/overused/whatever. (And it doesn't work "everywhere".) Balanced is much more fun and challenging. (T/ ) 08:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::If you dont want to use it because its gimmicky/imba/unfair/cliche/overused/whatever, why are you complaining then? It's your fault then that cantha is so hard. I finished Cantha long before sabway was invented (i dindt have heros back then, so it was even worse. Only henc, ow the horror!), so I do know what you're going through, but i can't understand why you aren't using one of the best builds in the game. I do find it courageus. And everything takes ages that way. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 08:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Here's something you may want to think about: I play the game for fun. FotM builds are no fun. Sabway is no fun. Pimpslap is no fun. Endurance Axe/Scythe is no fun. Seering Flooms is no fun. Lichway is no fun. Escape Scythe is no fun. AD INFINITUM. I feel slimy and scrubby after using such builds. It gives me no sense of accomplishment. Yes, I am self-imposing restrictions on myself because ANet won't fix their damn game, let alone make PvE balanced, ever. This is the same reason why I do not ever use cons, PvE-only skills, or any other BULLSHIT like that. The only time I use such things is for lolbuilds or when I don't give a fuck about the outcome of the battle (e.g. if I am out to cap an elite skill, I just want to get it over with ASAP). (note: Signet of Illusions is the sole exception, because that makes PvE skills and almost anything else highly enjoyable.) ::::::::Another thing for you to consider: I've finished Prophecies and Cantha before, I've done THK bonus with all hench, before Heroes, before AI updates, before H/H controls, before they fucking NERFED THE MURSAAT MONK BOSSES BECAUSE PEOPLE QQ'D THEY WERE TOO FUCKING HARD. So I *know* how things used to be; I've even written massive WoT's about it in the past, if you care to find them. ::::::::Cantha *IS* harder than it used to be, thanks to the buggy power creep update in December and others. I'm not the only one complaining about Jesus Beam. Anyone who has encountered it again in PvE, no matter what H/H setup they are using, has commented how it is wtf bugged and this causes undue hardship. There is absolutely no reason why the H/H shouldn't consider it an AoE and scatter like they usually do. Tanking 250-400 damage is just a fucking stupid thing to do, and it was totally preventable if ANet actually tested things like this before putting them into the game. (Remember Recurring Insecurity? Loltesting.) Sure, you can bring a better Monk to heal through it; sure, you can try to flag your H/H. But that doesn't make it any less broken. ::::::::Random other things which have made Cantha harder: Lightning Orb causing Cracked Armor; Flashing Blades buff; Enraged Smash becoming wtf ridiculous; Jagged Strike duration increase; Wild Strike unblockable; Boon Signet update (because, you know, monsters have wtf ridiculous energy); ......... I could add more later on. Compare this to Prophecies: Nothing has ever been made significantly harder there, with two notable exceptions: Aura of Faith (and that is pretty debatable, actually, whether it is not better or worse for PvE monsters), and Thunderclap (it's not an AoE so hench don't scatter = entire backline dazed = sucks). Remember the WoH update? Remember how many people QQ'd and whined about how this made Forgotten Sages too hard to kill? Well, ANet caved and so they removed them from the relevant missions. Good game, ANet, Prophecies is by far the hardest campaign...! Finally, Nightfall/EotN are irrelevant because the henchmen there are actually competent and useful most of the time, so it doesn't make much difference to me how much they fiddle with those difficulties. >.> (admittedly, Prophecies hench may be crappy, but they are good enough for the campaign in easymode and hardmode; and that is because Prophecies is largely easysauce.) ::::::::So in conclusion, I try to maximize my fun from the game, and that is even more important than winning, often. (Major exception to this is AB, but that's a whole other matter. AB is basically farming.) (T/ ) 08:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Addendum: I apologize if you take this as raging at you; I'm mad at ANet/the game, not you personally. Also, I have plans to write a "FactionsSucksSoMuch" article for GWW; I think I will share it here, as well. (T/ ) 09:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::::Imho, Lichway in PvE (well, not exactly as it is in PvP) is a boatload of fun. The best time I ever had in UW was probably with Jio and Blaze, running around with 7 Necros mainly spamming either BiP or animate Bone Fiend and salvaging a pair of Chaos Gloves. It was simply amazing :P We didn't take AoTL though, because it was pre-buff, but it's basically the same; except ranged. :::::::::I myself use PvE skills because I can. Those 2 examples also are more for lols than big domage (although Skippy is amazingly strong; KD and >100 damage, ootles). Sure, Sniper Support can dish out 780 piercing damage. Note that it's reduced by >50% because it's forking HM... Using PvE skills doesn't necessarily make the game less fun, imho. But, to each his own. :::::::::Godway/Rayway/RoJway is another gimmicky build, but quite lolworthy (imo, that is). Seeing most anything get fried because God said so with flashy blue beams of doom from the skies is almost priceless (will cost ya either a SoC or a Mo elite tome :P). I still await the day it's nerfed, though. :::::::::On a topic way up; Signet of Devotion is very blah. 2 sec casting for a blargh heal. I myself take Waste Not, Want Not over Leech Signet, and Life Sheath over AoF (because I find AoF to be amazing crap). And I'm no fan of any form of touch skills bar Vamp Touches / Starburst on my heroes. They tend to be dumb >>" (and it's mediocre). And even further up: Meekness > Shadow of Fear. It's a necro; you have plenty energy, and saccing is no biggie if you disable it and press a button at the start of a battle. Massacre range makes sure almost anything is caught in it. Shadow of Fear is good, nontheless, because you can let him cast more often. --- -- ( ) (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC) (Reset indent) No wonder you lost. Your monk has Guardian. 14:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC) :Patient spirit spam on monks, signet of devotion is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad for pve. Lord of all tyria 21:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC) ::Guardian owns. Heroes suck at using Patient Spirit because they'll overheal with it (e.g. they will cast it and then cast WoH or something, because the target is still in the "danger zone", nevermind that they will get a wtf heal in few seconds), and so it just wastes energy. I like Signet of Devotion, but I've never tested if hero builds work better with or without it; if I am monking, I will take it along at any rate. Meekness is largely unnecessary; I don't care about the sac etc., but I've never met a situation where it makes a significant improvement over Shadow of Fear. (Also: I can't be arsed to micro anything on Heroes except bonds, and I only use those in like two missions.) (T/ ) 02:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :::I did't take it personnaly, but heck, I like it the easy way. Why write a big paper, if the internet can get you the same sh*t in 5 min? (not a really good comparison, but hell, w/e). So PvE stuff finds its way unto my bar, and Sabway into my hero's. I don't care I want a "easy fun time". Also, below here, carebear, to use one of Auron's favorite posts. Again, LoLwUt. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 15:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ::::What? (T/ ) 23:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :::::Forgive me my mad ravings. What I meant, was that you shouln't take things too seriously. I see that with ppl around my in RL. Life is one big F*cking joke, and I really like laughing. Shake your head in to get rid of al the evil stuff, laugh at and with the world, and but a Big, broad smile on your face. The smile part doesn't really work for me, bu thats just my face that's not really coorperating. ;-). Al in all, have fun. Don't let the big bad things spoil everyting. There will always be a new day, a new start. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 09:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Irony no comment. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 06:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :No comment is still a comment, but I love you anyway, Pan. <3 (T/ ) 06:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 06:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ::: (T/ ) 06:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :::: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 17:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Demotion This is a very difficult thing for me to post. I've kept myself out of the discussions of these issues primarily because they didn't concern me and I didn't want to get involved, but now I feel very strongly that I have to say something. Your actions over the past couple months have been far from exemplary, especially where mendel is concerned. First you promote him to sysop "because you can", and later explain that you also did for personal reasons, in order to spit in Auron's face. Three days ago, you demote him because you disagree with a block he placed simply so you don't have to deal with any similar disputes in the future. (Never mind that he offered to resign for the same reason, you didn't have to take him up on the offer.) Less than two days later, you completely reverse your position and promote him to bureaucrat, saying, "have fun". You followed that up by posting on your userpage, "You people ... Are no longer worth my time. Good fucking game, Mendel. You can have this sorry wiki." Subsequent clarifications aside (since they could be construed as backpedaling), the general implication that most users took from those statements was that you were leaving this wiki for good. At least twice in the past, you have sworn off your administrative powers (either in part - only the bcrat powers - or in whole), and yet you continue to break that conviction and use them whenever you see fit, only to reinvoke the foreswearing as soon as you're finished. I hate to resort to cliches, but haven't you cried wolf enough? You also say that you hate wiki-drama, yet it seems that you have been one of the primary instigators of such in the past few weeks. There's more that I could bring up to support my case, but I don't feel that to be necessary at this point, and I don't want to come out looking like a muckraker. It seems that the only way to hold you to your commitment is to completely remove the temptation to use those powers by demoting you from the position of bureaucrat. I know your thoughts about blocks not being used punitively, so I'll make this clear now - I do not see this as a punitive measure. I propose it only in the hopes of preventing more self-inflicted mental/emotional trauma for yourself, and of preventing any more wiki-drama caused by any future bureaucratic actions you might take. Therefore, I move that User:Entropy be removed from the bureaucrats user group. —Dr Ishmael 07:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :Doctor...Yours is an opinion which I value and respect. As such, you have convinced me that it is necessary to write a massive and all-encompassing explanation dealing with a variety of issues, because there is far too much confusion and misunderstanding going around. Mendel has hinted that this is partially my own fault, and I will admit that - I have clearly not been transparant enough. :Give me one week, at least, to justify myself before taking any action with regards to user rights. (I am very busy in "real life".) Seeing as I have absolutely nothing to exercise my bureaucratic powers on now or in the short-term forseeable future (barring a need to use revisiondelete), I hope that is a compromise you can agree with. (T/ ) 08:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :agreed with op, entropy is just trolling hardcore. sort of like me. -Auron 10:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ::I had a long and poignant response to post. But IE killed it. Now, in all seriousness, I have been convinced to get FireFox. Thank you, Doctor. XC (T/ ) 10:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ::(edit conflict) To clarify this for innocent bystanders onlookers, there will not be an automatic demotion on this wiki. That is not to say that all hell won't break loose when the week has passed, but for me to not oppose your demotion today I either want to have a serious resignation offer from you in my email that is at least a week old, or overwhelming consensus from all editors. I'm not sure what to make of your reference to revisiondelete, but I ask you to not use it on any of your own (or related) contributions. ::Dr ishmael, to my knowledge your post contains factual errors. Entropy didn't really promote me "because I can", but the real reason doesn't fit an edit summary. It wasn't "in order to spit in Auron's face", but given that Auron privately opposed this very much, the promotion did in effect do that, and so the decision had to be a dual one. If you elope with your friend because your parents don't like him, you don't do it to spit in your parents face, although you do when you do. I was demoted because the misgivings that remained when Entropy promoted me had not been allayed over the past 3 months (though I wish those had been made clearer and addressed more directly; User talk:PanSola/Archive9#Resignation offer would have been such an opportunity), and the block just brought them to a point for Entropy. "Less than two days later" there had been a strong show of support for me and nearly none for Entropy (though there have been many neutral voices as well), and this prompted the final decision as a result. ::If Entropy's upcoming explanation confirms my view of events, there has not been a serious abuse of Bureaucrat powers. What remains is your dissatisfaction with the wiki drama Entropy caused, but she caused this not mainly in her role as bureaucrat, but in her role in the community as a person whom many editors relate to. To put it another way, you don't have to have bureaucrat (or even sysop) powers to ragequit the wiki. ::If Entropy has failed at anything, she's failed at being understood. On User:M.mendel/Admin advice#PanSola on irc, I advocated a "write first, ask questions later" discussion style as a means of preventing admins to grow to god-like proportions in the eyes of the community; and looking back on the past few days, everything seems to have worked according to theory. So what creates the wikidrama: the attempt at explanation that does not suffice, or the community who jump to conclusions? I've been at the center of wikidrama myself where I felt that no matter how I tried I could not make my position understood. We expect of bureaucrats that they can make their decisions transparent, and this is what Entropy has promised us now to attempt within seven days. To be honest, I'm looking forward to it. --◄mendel► 11:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ---- You're right. I have gone too far. My actions have caused much harm, some of it perhaps irreperable. While I may have done good work in the past, lately all I've done is fuck up over and over again. My actions have brought disgrace not only to myself, but to the people of GuildWiki, my friends, my fellow editors...and perhaps worst of all, to the administration of the wiki. I can only hope that my successors may redeem the respect and decorum which once graced the offices of sysop and bureaucrat. My last and final excuse - that of being only 18 and under enormous pressure - is a hollow one at best. You have seen me at my best, and you have seen me at my worst. One may choose to judge a man based on any point in this spectrum, and it is true that we often let things slide because humans aren't perfect. But the true measure of a leader is how they act in the face of adversity, at the worst of times. You have seen how low I can go. I have seen to what depths I can sink. And I solemnly admit that they are unacceptable by our standards. Do I feel remorse or regret?...No. As a friend of mine who found themselves in a much similar position explained, "I've done what I felt was for the best, with full understanding of the potential consequences, which I've knowingly and willfully brought upon myself. However, I believe that anyone who would have done other than what they viewed as best for the community should be standing here beside me, equally as guilty for detrimental abuse as I am guilty of positive neglect." I am not proud of everything I have done. But I will never look back upon my actions with shame. Every step of the way, I did what I thought was best, and that is the most anyone can ask for. I freely and willingly step down from the bureaucracy, and if it so please you, I will also hand in my sysop badge. Perhaps someday, when I am more mature, I will be worthy of them once again. But until that day, my reign is over. (T/ ) 11:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :yay -Auron 11:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ::I would just like to say, that you have not gone too far. Let's just check the current state of the wiki. Regretably, I have to agree with Auron, that this wiki is too much talk, too much luvyduvy, but that's the way I like it. Sure, it was bent on being an adequate source of information, and you can't compare this Wiki to the official one. At first - before I joined this community - I thought that the existence of this website in whole was irrelevant. But then I started looking into the agendas/userpages of the administrative crew. i.e. Gravewit, Entropy, Dr. Ishmael, etc. First I looked at Gravewit who was indeed a hard worker, and a standard wikian just like on any other Wikia source; strict and to the opoint. Then I looked at everyone else. ::And I said to myself... wow, this is an awesome community, I bet I can have a good time here. Bare note, I ignored the "standards" that Entropy said above, because it didn't seem like a problem. ::And so I enjoyed life here. Most of all with you, Entropy, because even though you were a Bcrat, I sort of had the feeling you would never do bad, but things look bad for you now, I'm sorry. Whatr you did tzo Auron wasn't bad, either. Look, problems happen, arguments arise, but it's only because we make a big deal of it, and some people tend to stick to their own op. amidst the unruly administrators. I thought the crew here was always level-headed, I had no idea you could all make such a catastrophic, demoralizing and unneeded decision. If Entropy would have just said "It's OK, mendel", she wouldn't have ended up in such a state of despair. I myself am on her side now. ::Girl, you can tell me you're temperamental, or you make brash decisions sometimes, or your life is hard (everybody's is, heck I'm in hopstital but I don't give up hope even though I ggot serious problems) but I don't care. In my eyes, you'll forever be there as an example and an idol. Because hard work brings its earnings, and it was Bcrats like you that made this wiki excel from the sloppy trash of the rest of Wikia. (no offense to the company, but you(I) can(could) barely find such a solid community on other wikia sources) I'll be daft. You shouldn't have given up. I had faith in your ever since I saw your userpage and your bond with people like mendel. Don't feel bad.--Alc ^^ 12:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :This is the internet. Thus anyone (especially of the female gender) claiming to be exactly 18 is by definition (of the internet) not of legal age yet. Just like anyone claiming to be exactly 13 is by definition of the internet not really 13 but has to lie to Wikia in order to create an account (not to say all of them will choose to lie to be exactly 13; many will indeed choose to lie to be older). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ::Well Pan, if you dug through my talk archives through the years, you could see various references to my age, from ~16...17...18, so even if I was lying at least I have kept it consistent. :D (T/ ) 23:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ::It may not be a good idea to lie yourself older than you are because you may lose some protection the laws afford you if you make others believe you are of legal age. Best to refuse to say your age, many adults don't want to say it either rather than lie about it. --◄mendel► 23:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC) :::Yeah, well, I'm just pointing out the liars here. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 23:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC) ::::I may or may not be lying. (T/ ) 00:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Just for reference, while Administrators are appointed for life, and there are no obligations for admins to exercise their power (they can choose to not use their powers at all), there have been precedents in the wiki where certain former admins felt the actual removal of the flags will physically help them take a step back away from the administrative matters and re-enjoy the wiki again, or to be more productive on the content side of the wiki without being bogged down into administrative tasks. I believe some former admins have indeed voluntarily resigned for it. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :I seem to recall similarly, although at the moment my memory is failing me. For my particular case, though, I believe that I have done enough to merit demotion regardless of if I want it or not. But, rather than facing the justice of the people, I am choosing to voluntarily resign so as to minimize the amount of drama etc. Perhaps I should adopt the nickname "Nixon". (T/ ) 23:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ::In anycase, if you wish to step down, you gotta take it up with Wikia. Fellow Bcrats can't really do anything with your letter of resignation except forward it to Kyle. Might as well do it yourself. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC) :::I will do that; however, the decision if I should keep my sysop badge remains solely for you bureaucrats fat middle-aged men sitting in front of their desk dealing with boring paperwork all the time. (T/ ) 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Right. *Puts the "Entropy Sysop Case" on the center left pile of paper*. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC) ::::BTW, Ishi's motion only dealt with the Bcrat flag. So unless you voluntarily wish to step down as Sysop also, nobody else is (at least within this thread) calling for your sysop flag to be removed. *Recycles the "Entropy Sysop Case" paper*. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Style and formatting guide for Dungeons May I respectfully pull you away from "The Big Matters Of Bureaucrats & Administrators" and ask you a question regarding your latest remark about style and formatting guide for dungeons ? Like, why do you think there should be one or what do you think should be improved in the dungeon articles ? -- -- ( talk ) 13:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :Well I am not saying that we need one, per se. I was just curious why there are no official formatting guidelines for dungeons. If you look at the various dungeon articles and their related quests, sometimes we have a walkthrough on one, or the other, or both, or neither (those ones need help!); and while they are all generally formatted the same, there are some inconsistencies which could go either way, as there is no guide to say what is preferred. I could show some examples if you want. (T/ ) 23:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC) i love you so much sometimes. -Auron 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :The sentiment never gets old, but the phrase does. (T/ ) 23:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ::Looking for a meaningful debate on how the phrase "I love you" has become so watered down as to be have lost almost all meaning? I'm up for that. talk 08:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC) I can write for the tonight show! This whole airplane ditching fiasco has actually inspired Samuel L. Jackson's next movie. Sharks on a plane.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :Hypothetical question: is a shark more dangerous in or out of the water? (T/ ) 23:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ::In between waters. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)